CHRISTIANITY IS AN EVOLVING MODEL:
Christianity spread among Romans, particularly after Constantine. As Romans suffered barbarians to fill military needs, Christianity spread further. Point is, Christianity worked with what it had -- flawed, violent, terrorized people. Distinguish between God and the doctrine through which mortals seek to appreciate God. The territory is more than the map. Christianity is an evolving model. What once were called demons may now be called infections. Christianity grew while people were looking for a better spiritual philosophy for how to communicate meaningfully with one another.
The issue seems to be: are we better off today, under societies more influenced by traditions under Christianity than under Gaia-like paganism, Islam, or statism? Is this a no-brainer? Weigh a society founded on respect for thoughts and feelings of individuals versus a society founded on a notion that individuals are of no value except for serving the planet, Islam, or the State. Even were violence equal, the difference availed in respect for individual dignity would still make the comparison a no brainer.
Some believe nations that predominately availed free practice of Christianity have historically been no better for reducing violence than have nations that predominately availed practice of Islam or Marxism. History won't support that case. I understand that Christianity went through forced practice, inquisition, and hysteria about witches, etc. Yeah. Zeal for saving souls, often masquerading for zeal for asserting power and control.
During times of constant violence, terror, and wars, such zeal is more understandable. However, as violence and terror have diminished in Western societies, zeal for forcing Christianity has also moderated. Which (if either?) was cause and which was result: violence or Christianity? Has there been comparable moderation in zeal among societies founded on collectivism or Islam? I suspect main "prophets" for collectivism (Alinsky?) and Islam (OBL?) have had quite little regard for individuals or their lives. Do you see anything comparable in words directly attributed to Jesus?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
PRE-CRIMES: I got it. The Dems manufacture' crimes in their twisted little ACORN-sized brains and blame others as the cause of their synaptic failures. The fools in Congress hold others responsible for their bad choices. November cannot come soon enough.
One thing to note: Progs won't need to build re-education camps like the North Vietnamese used. We already have them aplenty. Our kids go to them nearly every day, where they learn how to make placards saying: "Tax the rich; don't kill the poor."
BTW -- When it comes to higher morality, Muslim head saw'ers don't have much on Commies. What they do for Allah, Commies do just as willingly and in greater numbers for The People or The Planet. Ask the Khmer Rouge or the Red Guard.
Side thought (of which I don't know the answer): As I think about Constantine, Charles Martel, Richard the Lion Heart, Queen Isabella, and recent Serbian adventures, I realize Christian regimes have done a lot of creative bloodletting. But was most of that done to preserve or reclaim old lands? Or have Christian empires, crusades, and coalitions actually and actively sought to EXPAND dominion through armed FORCE every bit as much as Islamic and Communist regimes?
Well, what about rationales used for Columbus, Cortez, Manifest Destiny, and Rudyard Kipling? Were their religious rationales somehow more benign?
Has Christianity evolved, so that there it has become fair to distinguish Christian proselytizing from Islamic jihad? Is there a modern political distinction that is fair and just? Or do we just use creeds and cults as vain rationales for justifying what is already at work in our murderous little human inclinations? May something in the American or Western ethos really have raised us a notch? Or, even if it has, has it simultaneously impaired our capacity to defend ourselves from a gathering and then sudden decline? Hmmm.
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! My gorge rises at it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now?" (Hamlet, V.i)
HIGH TECH PAGANISM:
http://www.faithfacts.org/evolution-or-creation/origins-and-silly-putty/good-science-or-bad-philosophy#c
I like the reference to “high tech paganism,” which evokes a need to bewilder others, in order to displace a hole in oneself by reducing others to one’s spell. Of course, that is precisely the purpose of Global Warming Religion. When it comes to implying a commandment to take care not needlessly to foul our nest, I can appreciate a nod to God (or Meta Purpose). But preaching a purpose to take care not to foul, simply for the purpose of taking care not to foul, makes no sense, by itself … except to bewilder others.
To me, there is better reason to take care. That reason is not to preserve the nest, per se, but to preserve opportunity to commune with Higher Purpose. The source of that higher purpose is not the planet, per se, but the meta-Source, i.e., God. Except in pathetic bewilderment, one does not apprehend the material planet (Gaia) to be worthy of worshipful value in itself, but only as a signifier of that which is worthy. It is the immaterial consciousness which penetrates earth that is, in its meta self, the source of value. For Pan’s among us, perhaps reflection about panentheism may help set some on a path that leads to less pathetic appreciation of our situation than does pantheism. [websyte.com].
ObamaBullies have perfected a technique, well known to history: use the money and life fluids of the people to pay for the jackboots to be hired to put them to heel. The more the people rebel, the more the jackboots siphon from their bank accounts. ObamaBullies are on a mission: turn the populace into serfs, or bust the system trying. Decent people have no easy choice. Having let goons in power, there will be no way to avoid the sweat and tears needed to evict them. Those who refuse to see simply prefer the spirit draining ride to serfdom over the hard work required to restore liberty.
******
Who inspired the founders? Consider writs of assistance [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writs_of_assistance]: How many will Obama fashion in order to enforce his many and fine intrusions against individual liberty? How many of the caliber of James Otis, Jr. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Otis,_Jr.], will respond? And how many of John Adams’ competence will hear and push on the good work?
******
From A.T. -- conservativeatheist said, "the progressive left at the point of the government's gun and the religious right by threat of hell and damnation. In the unlikely event this country ever became a Christian theocracy I would not be surprised if the bible soon would replace our Constitution since, judging by most of the pro-religious posts on this forum, the bible trumps absolutely everything. Here is a bible quote I came across recently: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)"
First, one can choose how to let oneself be baited. I associate with a fair number of religious folks, none of whom have I seen threaten hell or damnation. I'm not quite clear whether the suggestion is that some significant number of Christian friends or associates are taunting with such threats. Second, a sword is metaphorical. Here's the thing: We make choices; that which we do not choose signifies opportunity costs. Not much mystery there, but a figurative way to put it. If there is a holistic, synchronizing Aspect or higher Consciousness, then, presumably, IT also makes choices. But must you imagine a literal sword is entailed in such choices, as opposed to a guiding hand?
The thing is, we have, as an important part of the backbone and soldiery of America, an existing cadre of people of good faith and good will. Is it really wise to marginalize them or their attempts to work together as part of the body of a higher source of charity and good? Are they really that much in your face? If the upset is in respect of social sciences in schools, pray tell what is so "scientific" about such soft disciplines, that they should entirely disregard the assimilated values of the society in which their subject matter is propagated?
Post a Comment